She Just Doesn't Get It

The essential outrage of "Holocaust on Your Plate" was not that it injured feelings, but rather that it equated human beings with cows, pigs and chickens.

Apologies are admirable. Only somewhat, though, when they miss the point entirely. The thought is born of the recent mea culpa offered by PETA president Ingrid Newkirk for her organization’s offensive “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign.

You may recall that effort of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals two years back to compare the meat processing industry to Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution for the “Jewish problem.” The traveling exhibit outraged innumerable observers with its placement of World War II death camp photographs next to scenes in animal slaughter facilities.

Naked, emaciated men were juxtaposed with a gaggle of chickens; pigs behind bars, with starving children behind barbed wire; mounds of human corpses with mounds of cow carcasses. In one panel, above the legend “Baby Butchers,” mothers and children in striped prison garb were shown staring through the barbed wire of a concentration camp; alongside them, a similar shot of caged piglets.

As might be expected, Holocaust survivors were particularly flabbergasted by the astounding tastelessness of the animal rights group’s exhibit. But it didn’t take any personal concentration camp experience to be stunned by PETA’s vulgarity.

One of countless expressions of disgust came from The Boston Globe, which editorialized that “PETA… has placed itself beyond the pale of worthy charitable organizations with this spiteful exhibit.”

Although the headline of Ms. Newkirk’s 1151-word press release describes it as an “apology,” the actual expression of regret consists of only parts of two sentences, each regretting the “pain” caused by the campaign. The remaining thousand-plus words consist of a justification of Ms. Newkirk’s decision to launch the campaign, and a recounting of how startled she was by the reaction. She had “truly believed,” she writes “that a large segment of the Jewish community would support” the exhibit, and was “bowled over by the negative reception” it received. Disturbingly, she lays responsibility for the ill-advised campaign on “PETA staff [who] were Jewish.” Shoulda guessed: It was the Jews.

More unsettling, though, is that nowhere in the lengthy release does Ms. Newkirk so much as touch upon what really made the exhibit obscene. If she thinks it was only the campaign’s insensitivity to survivors, she just doesn’t get it.

To be sure, the use of Holocaust images was incredibly callous to survivors; her apology to them and their descendents is, even if terse and belated, commendable.

But the essential outrage of “Holocaust on Your Plate” was not that it injured feelings, but rather that it equated human beings with cows, pigs and chickens. What is loathsome is that it reasserted PETA’s credo, reflected in its motto: “Meat is Murder.” The stance is well captured by Ms. Newkirk’s earlier declaration that that “Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses,” and in her infamous aphorism “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” That philosophy, denying humanity’s uniqueness, is beyond hurtful. It is evil.

And while Ms. Newkirk has tried to “contextualize” at least her “dog is a boy” remark as referring only to the sensation of pain, the comment’s context (in Vogue Magazine, 1989) is all too clear. The memorable line was a coda to her contention that “There is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights… They are all mammals.”

Her moral equation of the animal and the human was unambiguously evident, too, in her response to a reporter’s question about whether it was ethical to experiment on rats to cure human disease: She asked whether the reporter would endorse experimentation for the same purpose on the reporter’s child.

Few religious traditions are as concerned with animals as the Jewish. Not only were two of the three Biblical patriarchs, not to mention Moses, caring shepherds, but numerous biblical laws, conceptually illustrative as well as binding today, seek to spare animals unnecessary pain. There is, moreover, a global prohibition in Jewish religious law against inflicting such pain. And in actual practice, observant Jews are in fact exquisitely sensitive to animal wellbeing. I recall as a young boy how my father scooped two injured birds from a street and brought them home to care for them. In my own home, even insects are captured and released rather than killed.

But Judaism – and civilized society, which has adopted many of Jewish tradition’s ideals – maintains a clear and crucial distinction between the animal and the human. Animals, although they must not be caused gratuitous pain, may be forced to work and killed for food. And humans may not. Humans make moral choices. And animals do not. Conflating the two worlds, considering a rat to be a pig to be a dog to be a boy, inherently shows disdain for the specialness of the human being.

Even Ms. Newkirk’s apology seems to reiterate her conflating of animals and humans. Referring to factory farms and concentration camps, she asserts that “both systems [are] based in a moral equation indicating that ‘might makes right’ and premised on a conception of other cultures or other species as deficient and thus disposable.”

Still, though, there may be hope. At the very end of her manifesto, Ms. Newkirk claims that PETA’s “mission is a profoundly human one at its heart.” That phrase would seem to offer the possibility that PETA’s president, at least on some level, in fact recognizes that there is something profound about humanity, that dogs are not in fact boys. Should that seed of an understanding manage to grow, perhaps one day PETA will have the courage to truly apologize, for its core philosophy, disavow it, and re-enter the civilized world.

Until then, though, those of us who care about animals but know that they are not humans will do well to direct our support to the ASPCA.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 13

(13)
Anonymous,
June 5, 2005 12:00 AM

My biggest fear is that a society that treats animals like people will treat people like animals. Modern society has forgotten how to make distinctions; no wonder many people can no longer distinguish between people and animals. Many people are fond of pointing out that that the genetic code of humans and monkeys 99% the same. True enough, but one must keep in mind that the 1% difference is far, far more significant. I used to think that organizations like PETA were simply misguided; and that one can disagree with them and still respect them. Now I fear they represent a fundamental evil in our society. This is scary. And I have no respect for evil.

(12)
Richard Schwartz,
May 21, 2005 12:00 AM

Not Because of PETA, But Because of the Torah, We Must Be Involved

Rabbi Avi Shafran is correct in stating that Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA, does not get it when it comes to understanding why many in the the Jewish community were upset and outraged by PETA’s insensitive "Holocaust on Your Plate" exhibit and now feel that her recent apology is inadequate. However, this does not negate the fact that Jews should be actively involved in ending the widespread abuses of animals on factory farms and in other places and reducing the threat to public health and sustainability posed by animal-based diets. This is not because of anything PETA says or does. It's because Judaism mandates it.

(11)
asion francis,
May 19, 2005 12:00 AM

if there is any way that our human record can over right the holocaust i will suggest we go for if. but as it where we are left with this most dishuman act. we shall all remain to feel the sorrow of the holocaust. so i suggest any one who wants to comment on the holocaust should do some with a grest sense of respect to the jews, for our human race owe then a debt that can never be paid back EVER!!!

(10)
raye,
May 19, 2005 12:00 AM

Is PETA's piper pickled?

This Peta crusader doth protest too much. What is her family background? And does she never cheat a little? I have witnessed an author and lecturer who expounded about raw foods vegetarianism, eating pizza and other hot foods in a pizza palace. He saw me watch him.
I was once taken to a PETA meeting where I witnessed very disturbing behavior.
I am a vegetarian for health reasons. However,I do believe there should be more humane treatment of all animal life than is currently the practice.

(9)
Anna,
May 16, 2005 12:00 AM

She never will get it

Poor Ingrid Newkirk; how tragic to be so ignorant and stupid.

I also abhor cruelty to animals, but have the intelligence to know the difference between Holocaust-style barbarism and modern methods of butchery. Apart from anything else, who would want to eat meat from an animal that had starved to death ? The stupidity of this campaign is unbelievable. Or am I to assume that America doesn't have inspectors in its meatworks, as we have in New Zealand, ensuring that the animals are killed in a humane manner-and that only PETA are aware of this ?

Even if Jewish staff members did suggest the campaign, that is no excuse. I guess that there are Jews who just don't get it, just as there are members of every other race who don't. The fact that they were staff members and not chief exceutives implies that they have no special status, so why would their views prevail if other PETA workers did not feel the same ? If I were working for them, and anyone, Jew or Gentile, suggested such a campaign, I hope I would protest. This is a feeble excuse.

(8)
Hedva,
May 16, 2005 12:00 AM

ASPCA and PETA

I share your feelings about PETA, but to compare them to the ASPCA? That's extremely misleading. The ASPCA's definition of animals includes only dogs, cats, and other pets. PETA's work in the field of the meat industry is entirely unique and valuable.

-Hedva

(7)
Dwight,
May 16, 2005 12:00 AM

To Dehumanize A People Creates A Risk

To dehumanize a people, no matter how insignificant it may seem, is a step on the slippery slope to repeating past horrors. I am still stunned by Ms Newkirk's callous comments and her self defence.

(6)
Avigdor Aryeh Ross,
May 16, 2005 12:00 AM

This article misses PETA objective

This article is a very good "preaching to the chior" article but completely misses the objective of PETA.
PETA believes that the same rules of abuse and murder that apply to humans should apply to animals.
There is no way that their apology would back down from that stance.
They pinpointed the source of the hurt and outrage (comparing the NAZI holocaust to a chicken dinner) and apologized for it. They did not, and should not, aplogize for comparing animals to humans.
If they would have made the apology that this article asks for then the PETA organization would have to disband.

(5)
Mona Morstein,
May 16, 2005 12:00 AM

Cruelty is Cruelty

I think what the rabbi misses is the fact that America's animal industry is very cruel to animals. There is an attitude that "They are just animals" and so they can't feel pain or terror; so whatever we do to them in our raising and slaughtering process is fine. Especially if it makes us money. I suggest the rabbi buy a video about what DOES happen to animals in industrial factories and stockyards. That attitude regarding our food animals DOES mimic the Nazi attitude of the "sub-human" Jews, and did help to justify to them their treatment of Jews. Mentioning that our Torah ancestors were shepards is a statement that isn't at all pertinent and does not help much with the terrors that occur now in our meat and poultry industries. While I grant that Kosher meats are killed with thoughts of being kind and quick any Jew eating non-kosher chickens and meats should understand the fact of their horrid lives and their slaughters. Wake up folks and actually LEARN what is done to animals we eat; don't just take a Jewish stance against an ad based on personal affront and ignorance of the truth. If meat is part of our diets, we should focus on organic meats that treat animals with dignity and respect; avoid the drugs, chemicals, and hormones given to animals; and kill them, also, kindly.

(4)
Matthew Schutz,
May 15, 2005 12:00 AM

PETA does not miss its point

The simple fact of the matter here is that from PETA's perspective, it truly makes no distinction between animal species and humans. Quite frankly I find it close to paganism in that respect. I believe somewhere in talmud one of the Rabbeim states that one who kisses calves will kill people.

By equating animals and humans and rejecting the use of animals to advance science and medicine, PETA implictly impedes research and because of those delays, ends up killing people who might otherwise survive.

Ultimately because PETA equates people with animals they also equate Jews with animals. 65 years ago the world saw where that road led.

(3)
Yosef Ben Shlomo Hakohen,
May 15, 2005 12:00 AM

Rabbi Shafran's Universal Reminder

Rabbi Shafran's wise comments remind us of the following sacred and universal truth: Human beings are special as they were created in the Divine image with the capacity to emulate the Divine compassion and justice.

(2)
Natalie Wood,
May 15, 2005 12:00 AM

Strong Disagreement with PETA

As a committed vegetarian and staunch Jew I have a highly ambivalent attitude towards many aspects of kashrut. However, let Ms Newkirk be advised that Judaism regards all living creatures as having a spark of holiness within them and that literature in Jewish vegetarian circles is full of true-life instances seeming to prove conclusively that so-called dumb - but essentially sentient - creatures have emotions strongly akin to those felt by humans.

(1)
June Stillman,
May 15, 2005 12:00 AM

This is an atheistic view, since man evovled from lower forms of animals, man has no special place or privilege. But we were created in the image of God and we are unique and special. The Holocaust was a horrible crime against the Jewish people, I watched the film taken of the death camps on Public TV, it should never, never, never be compared to the slaughter of animals. This is man's inhumanity to man and must never be repeated.

I've been striving to get more into spirituality. But it seems that every time I make some progress, I find myself slipping right back to where I started. I'm getting discouraged and feel like a failure. Can you help?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Spiritual slumps are a natural part of spiritual growth. There is a cycle that people go through when at times they feel closer to God and at times more distant. In the words of the Kabbalists, it is "two steps forward and one step back." So although you feel you are slipping, know that this is a natural process. The main thing is to look at your overall progress (over months or years) and be able to see how far you've come!

This is actually God's ingenious way of motivating us further. The sages compare this to teaching a baby how to walk. When the parent is holding on, the baby shrieks with delight and is under the illusion that he knows how to walk. Yet suddenly, when the parent lets go, the child panics, wobbles and may even fall.

At such times when we feel spiritually "down," that is often because God is letting go, giving us the great gift of independence. In some ways, these are the times when we can actually grow the most. For if we can move ourselves just a little bit forward, we truly acquire a level of sanctity that is ours forever.

Here is a practical tool to help pull you out of the doldrums. The Sefer HaChinuch speaks about a great principle in spiritual growth: "The external awakens the internal." This means that although we may not experience immediate feelings of closeness to God, eventually, by continuing to conduct ourselves in such a manner, this physical behavior will have an impact on our spiritual selves and will help us succeed. (A similar idea is discussed by psychologists who say: "Smile and you will feel happy.")

That is the power of Torah commandments. Even if we may not feel like giving charity or praying at this particular moment, by having a "mitzvah" obligation to do so, we are in a framework to become inspired. At that point we can infuse that act of charity or prayer with all the meaning and lift it can provide. But if we'd wait until being inspired, we might be waiting a very long time.

May the Almighty bless you with the clarity to see your progress, and may you do so with joy.

In 1940, a boatload 1,600 Jewish immigrants fleeing Hitler's ovens was denied entry into the port of Haifa; the British deported them to the island of Mauritius. At the time, the British had acceded to Arab demands and restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine. The urgent plight of European Jewry generated an "illegal" immigration movement, but the British were vigilant in denying entry. Some ships, such as the Struma, sunk and their hundreds of passengers killed.

If you seize too much, you are left with nothing. If you take less, you may retain it (Rosh Hashanah 4b).

Sometimes our appetites are insatiable; more accurately, we act as though they were insatiable. The Midrash states that a person may never be satisfied. "If he has one hundred, he wants two hundred. If he gets two hundred, he wants four hundred" (Koheles Rabbah 1:34). How often have we seen people whose insatiable desire for material wealth resulted in their losing everything, much like the gambler whose constant urge to win results in total loss.

People's bodies are finite, and their actual needs are limited. The endless pursuit for more wealth than they can use is nothing more than an elusive belief that they can live forever (Psalms 49:10).

The one part of us which is indeed infinite is our neshamah (soul), which, being of Divine origin, can crave and achieve infinity and eternity, and such craving is characteristic of spiritual growth.

How strange that we tend to give the body much more than it can possibly handle, and the neshamah so much less than it needs!